In Bayesian mathematics, you start off giving 2 options equal plausibility, and then adjust with each piece of new information. I've been looking to apply Bayesian math to God to see what it comes up with and I think it's a possibility it might come to that result.

I was a Deist by definition before I became agnostic. I have come to the conclusion that both deism and atheism are faith based positions about something that we cannot know for sure. Deists have faith that there is an unseen supreme being and atheists have faith that there is nothing unseen. I prefer to remain open to all possibilities.

A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."

I was a Deist by definition before I became agnostic. I have come to the conclusion that both deism and atheism are faith based positions about something that we cannot know for sure. Deists have faith that there is an unseen supreme being and atheists have faith that there is nothing unseen. I prefer to remain open to all possibilities.

At 12/28/2014 4:37:23 PM, Wylted wrote:In Bayesian mathematics, you start off giving 2 options equal plausibility, and then adjust with each piece of new information. I've been looking to apply Bayesian math to God to see what it comes up with and I think it's a possibility it might come to that result.

I don't think you understand Bayesian math if you begin your explanation with "you start off giving 2 options equal plausibility". The whole selling point of the Bayesian theorem is to compare different priori probabilities with different levels of evidence. A low prior probabilit it's event becomes comparably more probably than another once evidence in favor of it is introduced.

At 12/28/2014 4:37:23 PM, Wylted wrote:In Bayesian mathematics, you start off giving 2 options equal plausibility, and then adjust with each piece of new information. I've been looking to apply Bayesian math to God to see what it comes up with and I think it's a possibility it might come to that result.

I don't think you understand Bayesian math if you begin your explanation with "you start off giving 2 options equal plausibility". The whole selling point of the Bayesian theorem is to compare different priori probabilities with different levels of evidence. A low prior probabilit it's event becomes comparably more probably than another once evidence in favor of it is introduced.

You're correct. I just have an extremely superficial knowledge of it but Inheard a mathematician at one point say that you'd start out treating to possibilities as equal until you squire more information.

I was a Deist by definition before I became agnostic. I have come to the conclusion that both deism and atheism are faith based positions about something that we cannot know for sure. Deists have faith that there is an unseen supreme being and atheists have faith that there is nothing unseen. I prefer to remain open to all possibilities.

Atheists don't believe there is nothing unseen. They simply deny or disbelieve in god(s), but that is probably a discussion for another thread.

My position is similar to yours, but I do deny gods which are obviously false.

The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible. - Salman Rushdie

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. - Bertrand Russell

I was a Deist by definition before I became agnostic. I have come to the conclusion that both deism and atheism are faith based positions about something that we cannot know for sure. Deists have faith that there is an unseen supreme being and atheists have faith that there is nothing unseen. I prefer to remain open to all possibilities.

Atheists don't believe there is nothing unseen. They simply deny or disbelieve in god(s), but that is probably a discussion for another thread.

My position is similar to yours, but I do deny gods which are obviously false.

I deny Gods in all traditional sense. I believe most atheists are better defined as agnostics. Although I chose to take the stance that there is no God and all gods are a human construct, I cannot speak to whether or not there is a higher cause or unseen forces either intelligent or not. So that makes me an agnostic-atheist for lack of better words.

We should start a thread as to whether or not total atheism is a faith based position due to lack of evidence. I see it as believing in an absolute that cannot be proven.

A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."

Using a god to fill in the gaps where our understanding fails is probably where religious belief in gods originated. It's sad but plausible. Don't use God to fill in gaps. Use understanding to do that. If there is a God he would be proud. ;)

A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."

Using a god to fill in the gaps where our understanding fails is probably where religious belief in gods originated. It's sad but plausible. Don't use God to fill in gaps. Use understanding to do that. If there is a God he would be proud. ;)

It's not that it fills in the gaps, its a logical explanation for the gap itself. The gap exists because there is no understanding for why the gap is there. When there are competing theories, the only theory tends to be the best theory.

Using a god to fill in the gaps where our understanding fails is probably where religious belief in gods originated. It's sad but plausible. Don't use God to fill in gaps. Use understanding to do that. If there is a God he would be proud. ;)

It's not that it fills in the gaps, its a logical explanation for the gap itself. The gap exists because there is no understanding for why the gap is there. When there are competing theories, the only theory tends to be the best theory.

You seem to conflate a failure in principle with a failure in practice. A legitimate case for God perhaps can be conceived if a gap exists in principle, however a gap just in practice runs into a philosophical wall of problems. Virtually any Bayesian look at the case will favor a secular explanation on first glance.

At 12/28/2014 4:37:23 PM, Wylted wrote:In Bayesian mathematics, you start off giving 2 options equal plausibility, and then adjust with each piece of new information. I've been looking to apply Bayesian math to God to see what it comes up with and I think it's a possibility it might come to that result.

I don't think you understand Bayesian math if you begin your explanation with "you start off giving 2 options equal plausibility". The whole selling point of the Bayesian theorem is to compare different priori probabilities with different levels of evidence. A low prior probabilit it's event becomes comparably more probably than another once evidence in favor of it is introduced.

You're correct. I just have an extremely superficial knowledge of it but Inheard a mathematician at one point say that you'd start out treating to possibilities as equal until you squire more information.

... You might find learning it interesting. It's pretty useful in life.

Using a god to fill in the gaps where our understanding fails is probably where religious belief in gods originated. It's sad but plausible. Don't use God to fill in gaps. Use understanding to do that. If there is a God he would be proud. ;)

It's not that it fills in the gaps, its a logical explanation for the gap itself. The gap exists because there is no understanding for why the gap is there. When there are competing theories, the only theory tends to be the best theory.

You seem to conflate a failure in principle with a failure in practice. A legitimate case for God perhaps can be conceived if a gap exists in principle, however a gap just in practice runs into a philosophical wall of problems. Virtually any Bayesian look at the case will favor a secular explanation on first glance.

I'm not one for philosophical arguments. I have studied and been over like countless ways the universe could have created itself. Anything from the string theory, to a quantum vacuum, etc. I sat down and listened to krauss go over his book at UGA a while back as well. There are plausible causes for how a universe can exist, but nothing to strong on either side.

I just find the arguments for divine intervention more compelling than I did before. Maybe deist is to broad a term. I was a full blown atheist, and maybe i slid over and hit agnosticism more lately.

I at least acknowledge that its highly possible a God could exist. I by no means believe it, but I admit to the possibility of it being real now.

Using a god to fill in the gaps where our understanding fails is probably where religious belief in gods originated. It's sad but plausible. Don't use God to fill in gaps. Use understanding to do that. If there is a God he would be proud. ;)

It's not that it fills in the gaps, its a logical explanation for the gap itself. The gap exists because there is no understanding for why the gap is there. When there are competing theories, the only theory tends to be the best theory.

You seem to conflate a failure in principle with a failure in practice. A legitimate case for God perhaps can be conceived if a gap exists in principle, however a gap just in practice runs into a philosophical wall of problems. Virtually any Bayesian look at the case will favor a secular explanation on first glance.

I'm not one for philosophical arguments. I have studied and been over like countless ways the universe could have created itself. Anything from the string theory, to a quantum vacuum, etc. I sat down and listened to krauss go over his book at UGA a while back as well. There are plausible causes for how a universe can exist, but nothing to strong on either side.

I just find the arguments for divine intervention more compelling than I did before. Maybe deist is to broad a term. I was a full blown atheist, and maybe i slid over and hit agnosticism more lately.

I at least acknowledge that its highly possible a God could exist. I by no means believe it, but I admit to the possibility of it being real now.

Using a god to fill in the gaps where our understanding fails is probably where religious belief in gods originated. It's sad but plausible. Don't use God to fill in gaps. Use understanding to do that. If there is a God he would be proud. ;)

It's not that it fills in the gaps, its a logical explanation for the gap itself. The gap exists because there is no understanding for why the gap is there. When there are competing theories, the only theory tends to be the best theory.

You seem to conflate a failure in principle with a failure in practice. A legitimate case for God perhaps can be conceived if a gap exists in principle, however a gap just in practice runs into a philosophical wall of problems. Virtually any Bayesian look at the case will favor a secular explanation on first glance.

I'm not one for philosophical arguments. I have studied and been over like countless ways the universe could have created itself. Anything from the string theory, to a quantum vacuum, etc. I sat down and listened to krauss go over his book at UGA a while back as well. There are plausible causes for how a universe can exist, but nothing to strong on either side.

I just find the arguments for divine intervention more compelling than I did before. Maybe deist is to broad a term. I was a full blown atheist, and maybe i slid over and hit agnosticism more lately.

I at least acknowledge that its highly possible a God could exist. I by no means believe it, but I admit to the possibility of it being real now.

Wanna debate me on this?

"It is possible for the universe to have been created intentionally"

Which is about the most relaxed definition of God I can think of.

As pro or con. I can do either, but you will have to give a while. I can easily write an argument revolving around singularity and the multi verse theory

Using a god to fill in the gaps where our understanding fails is probably where religious belief in gods originated. It's sad but plausible. Don't use God to fill in gaps. Use understanding to do that. If there is a God he would be proud. ;)

It's not that it fills in the gaps, its a logical explanation for the gap itself. The gap exists because there is no understanding for why the gap is there. When there are competing theories, the only theory tends to be the best theory.

You seem to conflate a failure in principle with a failure in practice. A legitimate case for God perhaps can be conceived if a gap exists in principle, however a gap just in practice runs into a philosophical wall of problems. Virtually any Bayesian look at the case will favor a secular explanation on first glance.

I'm not one for philosophical arguments. I have studied and been over like countless ways the universe could have created itself. Anything from the string theory, to a quantum vacuum, etc. I sat down and listened to krauss go over his book at UGA a while back as well. There are plausible causes for how a universe can exist, but nothing to strong on either side.

I just find the arguments for divine intervention more compelling than I did before. Maybe deist is to broad a term. I was a full blown atheist, and maybe i slid over and hit agnosticism more lately.

I at least acknowledge that its highly possible a God could exist. I by no means believe it, but I admit to the possibility of it being real now.

Wanna debate me on this?

"It is possible for the universe to have been created intentionally"

Which is about the most relaxed definition of God I can think of.

As pro or con. I can do either, but you will have to give a while. I can easily write an argument revolving around singularity and the multi verse theory

I am Con... I thought that much would be obvious from the way our discussion in the thread went, lol.

Using a god to fill in the gaps where our understanding fails is probably where religious belief in gods originated. It's sad but plausible. Don't use God to fill in gaps. Use understanding to do that. If there is a God he would be proud. ;)

It's not that it fills in the gaps, its a logical explanation for the gap itself. The gap exists because there is no understanding for why the gap is there. When there are competing theories, the only theory tends to be the best theory.

You seem to conflate a failure in principle with a failure in practice. A legitimate case for God perhaps can be conceived if a gap exists in principle, however a gap just in practice runs into a philosophical wall of problems. Virtually any Bayesian look at the case will favor a secular explanation on first glance.

I'm not one for philosophical arguments. I have studied and been over like countless ways the universe could have created itself. Anything from the string theory, to a quantum vacuum, etc. I sat down and listened to krauss go over his book at UGA a while back as well. There are plausible causes for how a universe can exist, but nothing to strong on either side.

I just find the arguments for divine intervention more compelling than I did before. Maybe deist is to broad a term. I was a full blown atheist, and maybe i slid over and hit agnosticism more lately.

I at least acknowledge that its highly possible a God could exist. I by no means believe it, but I admit to the possibility of it being real now.

Wanna debate me on this?

"It is possible for the universe to have been created intentionally"

Which is about the most relaxed definition of God I can think of.

As pro or con. I can do either, but you will have to give a while. I can easily write an argument revolving around singularity and the multi verse theory

I am Con... I thought that much would be obvious from the way our discussion in the thread went, lol.

you do devils advocate quite a bit lol, i'm sure you could argue either side. I have no solid position either way

Using a god to fill in the gaps where our understanding fails is probably where religious belief in gods originated. It's sad but plausible. Don't use God to fill in gaps. Use understanding to do that. If there is a God he would be proud. ;)

It's not that it fills in the gaps, its a logical explanation for the gap itself. The gap exists because there is no understanding for why the gap is there. When there are competing theories, the only theory tends to be the best theory.

Is it beige or is it a darker shade of off-white? That is your argument in a nutshell.

By using God to explain what we don't understand we are creating a God to fill in the gaps. It doesn't make the God any more real. In fact it negates the argument for a God as soon as we gain better understanding.

A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."

Using a god to fill in the gaps where our understanding fails is probably where religious belief in gods originated. It's sad but plausible. Don't use God to fill in gaps. Use understanding to do that. If there is a God he would be proud. ;)

It's not that it fills in the gaps, its a logical explanation for the gap itself. The gap exists because there is no understanding for why the gap is there. When there are competing theories, the only theory tends to be the best theory.

Is it beige or is it a darker shade of off-white? That is your argument in a nutshell.

By using God to explain what we don't understand we are creating a God to fill in the gaps. It doesn't make the God any more real. In fact it negates the argument for a God as soon as we gain better understanding.

Anything could be used in place of God, that much is true but there are reasons to believe God fits the gap more than any other variable inserted. I am by no means a christian or full blown diest, I just acknowledge the chance of that being the truth.

Using a god to fill in the gaps where our understanding fails is probably where religious belief in gods originated. It's sad but plausible. Don't use God to fill in gaps. Use understanding to do that. If there is a God he would be proud. ;)

It's not that it fills in the gaps, its a logical explanation for the gap itself. The gap exists because there is no understanding for why the gap is there. When there are competing theories, the only theory tends to be the best theory.

You seem to conflate a failure in principle with a failure in practice. A legitimate case for God perhaps can be conceived if a gap exists in principle, however a gap just in practice runs into a philosophical wall of problems. Virtually any Bayesian look at the case will favor a secular explanation on first glance.

I'm not one for philosophical arguments. I have studied and been over like countless ways the universe could have created itself. Anything from the string theory, to a quantum vacuum, etc. I sat down and listened to krauss go over his book at UGA a while back as well. There are plausible causes for how a universe can exist, but nothing to strong on either side.

I just find the arguments for divine intervention more compelling than I did before. Maybe deist is to broad a term. I was a full blown atheist, and maybe i slid over and hit agnosticism more lately.

I at least acknowledge that its highly possible a God could exist. I by no means believe it, but I admit to the possibility of it being real now.

Wanna debate me on this?

"It is possible for the universe to have been created intentionally"

Which is about the most relaxed definition of God I can think of.

As pro or con. I can do either, but you will have to give a while. I can easily write an argument revolving around singularity and the multi verse theory

I am Con... I thought that much would be obvious from the way our discussion in the thread went, lol.

you do devils advocate quite a bit lol, i'm sure you could argue either side. I have no solid position either way

I should rephrase the resolution:

"It is logically possible for the universe to have been created intentionally" I am Con, you are Pro, which reflects our genuine positions.

I could probably give a better DA case, but I am genuinely intrigued by your natural theological views,

Using a god to fill in the gaps where our understanding fails is probably where religious belief in gods originated. It's sad but plausible. Don't use God to fill in gaps. Use understanding to do that. If there is a God he would be proud. ;)

It's not that it fills in the gaps, its a logical explanation for the gap itself. The gap exists because there is no understanding for why the gap is there. When there are competing theories, the only theory tends to be the best theory.

You seem to conflate a failure in principle with a failure in practice. A legitimate case for God perhaps can be conceived if a gap exists in principle, however a gap just in practice runs into a philosophical wall of problems. Virtually any Bayesian look at the case will favor a secular explanation on first glance.

I'm not one for philosophical arguments. I have studied and been over like countless ways the universe could have created itself. Anything from the string theory, to a quantum vacuum, etc. I sat down and listened to krauss go over his book at UGA a while back as well. There are plausible causes for how a universe can exist, but nothing to strong on either side.

I just find the arguments for divine intervention more compelling than I did before. Maybe deist is to broad a term. I was a full blown atheist, and maybe i slid over and hit agnosticism more lately.

I at least acknowledge that its highly possible a God could exist. I by no means believe it, but I admit to the possibility of it being real now.

Wanna debate me on this?

"It is possible for the universe to have been created intentionally"

Which is about the most relaxed definition of God I can think of.

As pro or con. I can do either, but you will have to give a while. I can easily write an argument revolving around singularity and the multi verse theory

I am Con... I thought that much would be obvious from the way our discussion in the thread went, lol.

you do devils advocate quite a bit lol, i'm sure you could argue either side. I have no solid position either way

I should rephrase the resolution:

"It is logically possible for the universe to have been created intentionally" I am Con, you are Pro, which reflects our genuine positions.

I could probably give a better DA case, but I am genuinely intrigued by your natural theological views,

It would be more on negating your case than presenting my own if we did it. As I said I have no firm stance either way. I can argue that the universe can caused itself to exist, that it had an external cause, whatever.

Using a god to fill in the gaps where our understanding fails is probably where religious belief in gods originated. It's sad but plausible. Don't use God to fill in gaps. Use understanding to do that. If there is a God he would be proud. ;)

It's not that it fills in the gaps, its a logical explanation for the gap itself. The gap exists because there is no understanding for why the gap is there. When there are competing theories, the only theory tends to be the best theory.

Is it beige or is it a darker shade of off-white? That is your argument in a nutshell.

By using God to explain what we don't understand we are creating a God to fill in the gaps. It doesn't make the God any more real. In fact it negates the argument for a God as soon as we gain better understanding.

Anything could be used in place of God, that much is true but there are reasons to believe God fits the gap more than any other variable inserted. I am by no means a christian or full blown diest, I just acknowledge the chance of that being the truth.

But here in lies the problem with using God for such a purpose... it creates an emotional attachment to the unknown. So much so that it becomes a detriment to progress. Ask the heretics who were prosecuted by the church. Look at the heated debates regarding evolution or creationism. An attachment to a God that fills in the gaps is not a good thing. A deep respect for the unknown is okay but as soon as it is labeled the work of a supreme being the emotional attachment replaces the need for understanding

A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."

IMHO by recognizing that you are only converting to deism because it is more plausible (not because you cognitively or confidently believe it to be true), you are actually primarily converting to agnosticism rather than deism in and of itself ("I cannot know and I therefore default to deism based on plausibility > agnostic or agnostic deist rather than just a deist")